Side note - anybody thinking about getting married should look into the financial implications of getting divorced. It shouldn't stop you, but you should at least understand you're putting at least half of everything you own on the table and potentially more. I think you don't completely understand marriage unless you've been divorced.
It may just be confirmation bias but I've been thinking about heading off in a much less conventional direction myself so articles like this are welcome.
Why do people get married? It's a poorly defined contract with ill-defined consequences into which they enter apparently because it's what everyone else does to signal their feelings. Similar to giving a diamond engagement ring or using off-the-shelf business forms.
You are not marrying another person. You are marrying the other half of YOU. And not your better half either, simply your other half. It's not about love either. Love (as commonly used) lasts 3 years. Don't marry for love or you'll get divorced in 3 years. There needs to be a deeper, quieter, but more constant emotion.
I actually wonder whether marriage should have a time limit specified. Its a better fit to reality : people living longer, large proportion divorcing after 5 years, sequential marriages to different people.
"I love you darling, will you spend the next 12 years with me to raise a child together?".
This is not purely cynical... I think its so cool when two people who have been married for 15 years decide to celebrate with second marriage ceremony to launch them into the next 15.
The time commitment should set the financial arrangements when you divorce - Ending a life long marriage might split 50/50 whereas ending a 10yr marriage might confer a 15% mix of wealth shared.
Ummm, it takes a minimum of 18 years to raise a child. If you continue to "raise" the child through college, add at least another four. If you have more than one child, you hit the timer reset every time.
Getting married to raise a child is essentially a lifetime commitment, at least for one of the two getting married.
A lot of people don't like a lot of things, so what? It still happens. When the laws of a country are based on religion and pre-marital sex is not allowed, solutions like this are bound to happen; it is inevitable.
"I think its so cool when two people who have been married for 15 years decide to celebrate with second marriage ceremony to launch them into the next 15."
Because your relationship has reached a point where you're both sacrificing a LOT just to be together. You're planning the rest of your life with the idea that she (or he) will be a part of it. Why? Because you're in love and you wouldn't want a future without the other person.
So why get married? Because you don't want the other person to be capable of throwing all of your sacrifices away on a whim just because you hit a rough patch.
So why get married? Because you don't want the other person to be capable of throwing all of your sacrifices away on a whim just because you hit a rough patch.
Not sure this is really HN fodder but since we're on the subject.
That you give two almost completely diametrically opposed reasons for marriage says a lot about the schizophrenia of the institution. Marriage is simultaneously an expression of love and solidarity and a business contract with the potential for extremely stiff penalties in breach. It's the ultimate "trust but verify" of human relationships. The longer you ponder this the stranger the whole idea seems.
Bad choice of words perhaps. I really meant hide it out of reach, not hide it out of sight.
Good point though. Actually hiding assets is a terrible form of protection (just as in computing security through obscurity is a terrible means of security).
EDIT: Looks like jacquesm can type faster than I :-/
Hey, all I have is a typing diploma and a driving license, both were money well spent and I use them every day. It's not a whole lot of formal education but I get by ;)
That's so true. The other advice reads like security through obscurity, once the secret is blown (and there are no secrets if there is more than one person involved) the security is too.
My understanding is that half of everything you earned and bought while married is on the table. Stuff you owned or earned before the marriage is not on the table unless you want it to be. Non-marital property vs. marital property.
A co-worker of mine got divorced not long ago. I believe it went to court, but not sure (they both had lawyers). No kids were involved. His wife received half his assets, 100% of their co-owned business, all of his retirement money, and substantial alimony for 5 years. He got a devalued house with 2 mortgages and a 15 year old car. The wife is also a skilled, in-demand professional who could easily make $60k/year+.
Hearing face-to-face how badly this guy got fucked over was eye-opening to say the least. The truth is, family courts are highly biased against men. Get a pre-nup if you get married, or learn that truth the hard way.
And be fully aware that pre-nups can and often are overturned in divorce courts. Also be aware that different countries have very different rules regarding pre-nups and divorce. So even if your pre-nup is watertight when you get married, if you subsequently move and end up getting divorced in a different country then don't expect your old pre-nup to be worth anything.
The funny thing is that you face bias even if you are a man or a women.
Let's face it. It sucks to be a woman in 90% of the world. You do not have any right over your own body. You are a second rate citizen. At best. Oh and you are a commodity to be kept "intact" and sold through something that resembles marriage, but isn't marriage. Not to mention a vagina that has the audacity to bleed once a month causing pain that most men simply don't understand.
Yet it is equally hard to be male, especially if you deviate from the established norms of masculinity. It is quite interesting how society censors effeminate male behavior than masculine female behavior. It doesn't matter where you are born being a gender variant kid isn't exactly a nice deal. However, if you are the alpha male who pounds his hairy muscular chest while trying to club women, then you've got it made.
At the same time I see reverse discrimination operate for males in a lot of spaces. Granted it is not as wide spread as discrimination against women, but it exists. Somehow society has taught us that women cannot perpetuate sexual abuse, or any kind of abuse for that matter and we agree to tow the line. I've actually seen people being framed by women who abuse laws that exist to protect them against a chauvinistic society.
I guess this is what they call the human condition, and in a lot of ways it will stop only when we stop segregating people into roles based upon some difference we can come up with. I wish I could tell people to calm down and just let each other be.
Much bitching by men notwithstanding, I believe the exact opposite. Statistics say that after divorce, men usually wind up better off and women worse off.
One place that I wound up reading about this, with lots of specific statistics quoted, was The Price of Motherhood. (That source had an obvious axe to grind. But including lots of citations from actual research, and that is the part I'd trust here.)
You point out that divorce is initiated 70% of the time by women. However that has little direct correlation with how the divorce goes.
You point out that women tend to get over 50% of the assets. This is true. However women tend to keep the kids, and therefore take an undue portion of the future economic liabilities coming from the relationship. In particular this makes it more likely that they will be granted the house - typically the couple's biggest asset. Furthermore if you include expected future income, women are suddenly much worse off.
And we come to the more important point. It is indisputable that women are much more likely to be granted custody of the kids. However most of the time men don't actually want custody of the kids. When men choose to contest it, they usually wind up with the kids. (For the simple reason that, having a more dependable source of income, men are typically in a better position to raise the kids.) you have to look at what the couple wanted. Men who choose to contest custody usually wind up with the kids. Therefore the fact that the woman tends to wind up with the bulk of the responsibility for that liability isn't actually a sign that women are coming out ahead in the divorce.
However women tend to keep the kids, and therefore take an undue portion of the future economic liabilities coming from the relationship.
In this case they also get child support and, often, alimony.
However most of the time men don't actually want custody of the kids. When men choose to contest it, they usually wind up with the kids.
Source?
For the simple reason that, having a more dependable source of income, men are typically in a better position to raise the kids.
This isn't 1950 anymore. Women now outnumber men in many professions and are earning more college degrees. Of the couples in my office only one has a stay-at-home wife. In many of these couples the wife has a job with more authority and a better salary. Child care is being outsourced.
It's true that either side can lose out in a divorce but it's just not true anymore that divorce favors men.
I think it depends on the state but you're right that's how it works in CA.
Of course that means that if you're the only one working in a marriage that's half of your 100%. If you get married young you probably won't be starting with much.
Yup. Presumably the non-earner is contributing something else to the marriage and to the household (like child-rearing). And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner.
But who knows. I'd want to talk to a divorce lawyer or judge.
I just wanted to clarify the common misconception that you can "marry someone and take half of their [existing] stuff".
And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner.
Again I think this varies from state to state but at least in CA considerations like this make zero difference. You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period. I imagine the intent of this rule is to limit the legal wiggle room and consequently the court costs of a divorce but the first thing they'll tell you is to not even use the word "fair".
But you're right that things you owned beforehand remain yours.
> You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period.
And on top of that the judge that ultimately reviews the case can change the terms even if both parties have agreed to them. Presumably this is to fix the problem of making someone sign to a unfair arrangement under duress.
This annoyed me (scared me, really) when I went through my divorce, but ultimately our agreement went through the court unscathed (pretty much just 50/50, though certain things are complicated, like how do you value the dog??).
is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce?
The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair?
You also split debts. I had a friend that split up with his wife but got saddled with half of the debts she ran up running her own business that he had nothing to do with. This is why it's very important to document the date of separation because that's what's used to decide who gets what.
is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce?
Depending on how you define said net worth, possibly. But you have to define it very carefully. So that's probably not a good way to look at things.
The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair?
The problem is that the yearly earnings of the breadwinner are often affected by the support of the partner. If a woman puts her husband through med school, his expected future income is an asset that she had some role in providing him. Does she deserve to be compensated for that? If so, then how much?
Going the other way, suppose that she compromised her career for him. Sure, she can go back in the working world, but initial differences in income levels tend to permanently affect your future income. Does she deserve compensation for her likely permanent reduction in potential earnings? Speaking of which, how can you try to quantify that?
And then the million dollar question. Suppose that she is left with a permanent economic liability, aka kids. (When men contest custody, they get the kids 70% of time, but men seldom contest custody.) How do you fairly divide the cost of raising said kids?
Nothing is simple about the economics of what constitutes a fair divorce. And there are enough vague, open-ended questions there for both parties to come out feeling legitimately hard done by.
If a woman puts her husband through med school, his expected future income is an asset that she had some role in providing him. Does she deserve to be compensated for that? If so, then how much?
Or, if a husband supports his wife and pays for her schooling while he's the only one working, is she still entitled to half of everything he earned in that period, including 401k and stock options?
Ask your lawyer about Family Limited Partnerships. Don't own anything yourself. It's better for tax and estate reasons. And agree up front how assets are split if their ever is a divorce.
It may just be confirmation bias but I've been thinking about heading off in a much less conventional direction myself so articles like this are welcome.